Who should we keep? Who should we get rid of? Who do you want new? Who do you think the White Sox will actually get?

Pequod

10-10-2007, 02:28 PM

Definitely keep: Jenks
Probably keep: Wasserman, Thornton

Get rid of: All but the above.

Get: ???

MCHSoxFan

10-10-2007, 03:48 PM

Definitely keep: Jenks
Probably keep: Wasserman, Thornton

Get rid of: All but the above.

Get: ???

That's exactly what I thought!!! This sounds like what Merkin said in his article.

KyWhiSoxFan

10-10-2007, 05:47 PM

Keep Jenks, Wasserman, Logan, and Floyd (if he's not a starter)

Get rid of MacDougal, Thornton, Bukvich, Day, and everyone else.

I hope they don't give up too soon on Logan. He's only 22 and still learning. He's very cheap and already far ahead of where he should be right now in terms of place in the organization. He'll still be pitching in the majors ten years from now.

I hate when the organization rushes someone along and then gets rid of them if they're not all-star quality in year one or two. Two or three years from now, Logan could be the setup lefty. If you don't like Logan on the team in 2008, then he should be sent to the minors for another year of seasoning. It doesn't cost much to just hang onto him to see what he becomes.

sox1970

10-10-2007, 06:00 PM

As long as MacDougal, Sisco, Aardsma, and Masset are all gone, I'll be happy.

I'd like them to start using some of the minor league starters as bullpen guys. Heath Phillips and Adam Russell come to mind.

chisoxmike

10-10-2007, 06:08 PM

As long as Gene Honda never says the following names... Mike MacDougal, Ryan Buckvich, Mike Myers, David Aardsma, Andrew Sisco, that will be a start.

Sockinchisox

10-10-2007, 06:45 PM

I know Masset didn't do well in his first go around but I'd be open to let him compete for a pen spot next year, he still has good stuff.

But other than that, ya, boot MacDougal, Thornton, Myers and Bukvich.

Lip Man 1

10-10-2007, 07:11 PM

Keep: Jenks
Maybe keep: Wassermann, Thornton

Who to get:

Some possibilities.....in no particular order

Luis Vizcaino
Juan Cruz
Oscar Villareal
Scott Linebrink

Inquire about Scott Shields (possibly as part of a larger deal, especially if the Sox insist on moving Garland)

Get: ???
Logan stays. If Masset doesn't get traded, he's probably back in the pen. That leaves room for one or two acquisitions. Who will they be? I have no idea but they better be somebody bona fide good.

Qdiddy

10-10-2007, 11:50 PM

Here's my crazy idea which is highly unlikely but you never know... See if Jenks wouldn't mind going back to being a setup man and sign M. Rivera from the Yankees.

I know it's a dream but can you just imagine how much our pen would be improved with that move? sick!

Nellie_Fox

10-11-2007, 12:02 AM

Here's my crazy idea which is highly unlikely but you never know... See if Jenks wouldn't mind going back to being a setup man and sign M. Rivera from the Yankees.

I know it's a dream but can you just imagine how much our pen would be improved with that move? sick!Rivera's best days are behind him. He could set up for Jenks, however.

Way too old, and despite showing some usefulness in the pathetic NL Central, he would absolutely get pounded here. Check out his numbers everytime he has pitched in the AL.

No thank you - not even for free.

Lip Man 1

10-11-2007, 09:17 AM

Grez:

I've never believed in the philosophy that you 'must' have a left hander in the bullpen. The Sox need guys who can get outs period. I don't care if they throw from the left side or the right side.

Let's put it this way, would you rather have a guy or guys who can get hitters out regardless of what side of the plate they stand in or use someone like Logan a potential head case (by his own admission) and someone who tends to give up the long ball, including a few times to left handers (guys that he's supposed to be getting out?)

This 'specialization' in my opinion has gone way to far.

Lip

oeo

10-11-2007, 09:27 AM

Keep: Jenks
Maybe keep: Wassermann, Thornton

Who to get:

Some possibilities.....in no particular order

Luis Vizcaino
Juan Cruz
Oscar Villareal
Scott Linebrink

Inquire about Scott Shields (possibly as part of a larger deal, especially if the Sox insist on moving Garland)

No offense, but all of those possibilities, excluding Linebrink and Shields, suck. Why not just go back to our young bullpen...at least those guys have potential and are not old, and mostly out of their prime. Who cares if they're veterans if they suck?

Lip Man 1

10-11-2007, 09:33 AM

OEO:

We just have to agree to disagree.

The risk with going back to what the Sox had is that you run the risk of 'losing' the veterans on the team.

Ozzie publicly, at least one time this summer, went on record as saying that this was already starting to happen, that some veterans started saying, 'what's going on,' with reference to the much 'hyped' wonderkids, who couldn't throw strikes, couldn't get anybody out and was blowing games left and right.

I would also tend to disagree somewhat with your statement that 'these guys have potential.'

Masset is out of options, obviously he's had chances and could never get the job done. I'd strongly say that Sisco has little 'potential.' Aardsma can't seem to throw a strike to save his life. Logan (again no personal offense) may not have the mental strength needed to be successful.

I'm simply not encouraged to bank a season on those guys.

Just my opinion.

Lip

oeo

10-11-2007, 09:39 AM

OEO:

We just have to agree to disagree.

The risk with going back to what the Sox had is that you run the risk of 'losing' the veterans on the team.

Ozzie publicly, at least one time this summer, went on record as saying that this was already starting to happen, that some veterans started saying, 'what's going on,' with reference to the much 'hyped' wonderkids, who couldn't throw strikes, couldn't get anybody out and was blowing games left and right.

So we're going to bring in a bunch of old guys, out of their primes, and hope they get the job done? No thanks, I'd rather watch the 'potential.'

I would also tend to disagree somewhat with your statement that 'these guys have potential.'I never said they were potentially good, but it's a chance I'd rather take than signing old relievers who may end up getting hurt and we have to go to the young guys anyway.

And it surprises me that you're willing to go the 'high risk, high reward' route (which is what getting guys like Guardado, Weathers, Cruz, etc. is), when you're one of the first to criticize those decisions by Kenny.

I'm simply not encouraged to bank a season on those guysBut you are encouraged by an out-their-prime, injury-risk bullpen?

Personally, I don't want to go either route. I'd rather we shy away from that 'risky business' and acquire guys that are good right now (not potentially later in their careers, or in their past), like you mentioned Linebrink and Shields. I'd rather not go into the season with another question mark of a bullpen; instead have one that we know will succeed.

Lip Man 1

10-11-2007, 09:48 AM

Injury risk according to whom?

I haven't seen the guys I mentioned on the DL recently..have you? (Outside of the long shot possibilities I mentioned)

Regarding the high risk / high reward, I'm simply stating a fact. The White Sox will always take a look at those type of guys, for whatever reason or reasons. I was trying to be somewhat realistic. I don't like the idea myself but let's face it, these are the White Sox. 'It is what it is.'

To me the big point is one you didn't touch upon on enough. Ozzie said some veterans were beginning to get 'concerned' over what was going on. You can interpret that anyway you wish.

If you go back to the hard throwing kids who can't get people out, you have at least the potential for some serious issues developing in the clubhouse.

Want to tear a team apart and blow any shot for the season? That's a pretty good way to do it.

Like I said we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've seen the trash in the bullpen the past two years...'it's time,' to try again.

Who knows? Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm. Although I do like the way you closed your comment. I wish that would be the case but realistically I can't see the chips ($) both on the field and off it falling into place enough to make that happen.

Lip

oeo

10-11-2007, 10:00 AM

Injury risk according to whom?

I haven't seen the guys I mentioned on the DL recently..have you? (Outside of the long shot possibilities I mentioned)

Juan Cruz constantly has some kind of problem, I haven't heard much about Villarreal but he had some serious injury problems a couple years ago, Vizcaino is getting up there in age, and then Guardado/Weathers.

Regarding the high risk / high reward, I'm simply stating a fact. The White Sox will always take a look at those type of guys, for whatever reason or reasons. I was trying to be somewhat realistic. I don't like the idea myself but let's face it, these are the White Sox. 'It is what it is.'We agree, then. I don't want them to go either route (young or old); I hope they agree.

russ99

10-11-2007, 10:58 AM

I have this morbid fear that Kenny will keep MacDougal just beacuse he's under contract for next year.

Do we need a Pollitte flameout to get rid of this guy?? He obviously can't cut it at the Sox major bullpen weak spot for 2007, RH set-up.

We need a better option at set-up man. If MacDougal was the last righthander in the pen, maybe keep him around, but there's no way he should be considered in his 2007 role for next season.

chisoxmike

10-11-2007, 11:08 AM

Why not just go back to our young bullpen...

Because they suck too. I got pretty pissed knowing our 10-2 leads were not safe with MacDougal, Buckvich, Logan, Masset, and the other hacks coming out of the bullpen.

Time to get new blood in there.

Foulke You

10-11-2007, 11:31 AM

I have this morbid fear that Kenny will keep MacDougal just beacuse he's under contract for next year.

Do we need a Pollitte flameout to get rid of this guy?? He obviously can't cut it at the Sox major bullpen weak spot for 2007, RH set-up.

We need a better option at set-up man. If MacDougal was the last righthander in the pen, maybe keep him around, but there's no way he should be considered in his 2007 role for next season.
Am I the only one who thinks MacDougal can have a rebound year in '08? He was one of the more reliable bullpen arms in 2006 and his stuff is filthy when he is locating it. Mike struggled through some injuries in the 1st half and overall, he had a dreadful '07 season there is no doubt about that so obviously, the Sox shouldn't pencil him in as the 8th inning setup role. However, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing him back in the middle relief part of our pen and see how he does in Spring Training and early in the year. He could be a valuable piece to the bullpen puzzle if he rebounds. Bullpen pitchers have up and down years and this could very well have been his "down" year. Look at Alan Embree for example. Everyone thought he was washed up with the Sox in '01 (including me) but he rebounded with the Giants and Boston and is still a productive bullpen pitcher with Oakland.

Tragg

10-11-2007, 12:36 PM

Keep Jenks, Wasserman, Floyd, Thornton, Broadway

Release Myers, MacDougal, Bukvich.

Logan - not sure. Top level bullpens don't need situational lefties.

Add some young pitchers.

Foulke You

10-11-2007, 05:20 PM

Logan - not sure. Top level bullpens don't need situational lefties.
This is the biggest problem with Logan. He is terrible against right handed batters. (They hit over .350 off of him) This makes him a 1 or 2 batter pitcher, tops. You could forgive this if he was dominant against lefties like Kelly Wunsch was but there were many times in the '07 season where we needed Logan to get a couple of lefty batters out and he lost his control and ended up walking them to set up a disasterous inning for MacDougal/Aardsma/Masset, etc. Maybe Logan isn't done developing yet which is fine, but we need to win now in 2008 and can't wait for him to figure out how to pitch at the MLB level. Have him pitch in Charlotte or Birmingham and learn a new pitch that can fool right handers.

SouthSide2Ship

10-17-2007, 12:13 AM

Keep: Jenks and Thornton
Add: Vizcaino (I love the '05 Sox) and Foulke (He got sucker punched in that Detroit fight a few years back and it was sweet)

Danryan

10-17-2007, 08:15 AM

Bobby, Wasserman; then back up the bus!

SBSoxFan

10-17-2007, 08:25 AM

So we're going to bring in a bunch of old guys, out of their primes, and hope they get the job done? No thanks, I'd rather watch the 'potential.'

I never said they were potentially good, but it's a chance I'd rather take than signing old relievers who may end up getting hurt and we have to go to the young guys anyway.

And it surprises me that you're willing to go the 'high risk, high reward' route (which is what getting guys like Guardado, Weathers, Cruz, etc. is), when you're one of the first to criticize those decisions by Kenny.

But you are encouraged by an out-their-prime, injury-risk bullpen?

Personally, I don't want to go either route. I'd rather we shy away from that 'risky business' and acquire guys that are good right now (not potentially later in their careers, or in their past), like you mentioned Linebrink and Shields. I'd rather not go into the season with another question mark of a bullpen; instead have one that we know will succeed.

I don't think I'd ever heard of Linebrink before Milwaukee got him, and my perception was that he didn't do very well with them. So, I was wondering why I hear his name a lot as someone for the Sox to add.

Based simply on ERA (I know), I'm not so sure you could characterize Linebrink as good right now. His ERA was 2.14 and 1.83 in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Since then, he's gone 3.57 and 3.71. That may be good compared to the Sox' 2007 bullpen, but is it worth what he'd likely cost?

I wouldn't just give away anyone who has any stuff. That includes Macdougal and Aardsma. Let's try to get Macdougal's head right, and try to teach Aardsma a second pitch before giving up on them. I'd also keep Jenks, Thornton, Logan, and Wasserman.

October26

10-17-2007, 09:18 AM

Am I the only one who thinks MacDougal can have a rebound year in '08? He was one of the more reliable bullpen arms in 2006 and his stuff is filthy when he is locating it. Mike struggled through some injuries in the 1st half and overall, he had a dreadful '07 season there is no doubt about that so obviously, the Sox shouldn't pencil him in as the 8th inning setup role. However, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing him back in the middle relief part of our pen and see how he does in Spring Training and early in the year. He could be a valuable piece to the bullpen puzzle if he rebounds. Bullpen pitchers have up and down years and this could very well have been his "down" year. Look at Alan Embree for example. Everyone thought he was washed up with the Sox in '01 (including me) but he rebounded with the Giants and Boston and is still a productive bullpen pitcher with Oakland.

Foulke:
I like your line of thinking and I'm hoping for a rebound from MacDougal in 2008. But here's the thing: I can't stand that herky jerky motion of his! I wish MacDougal's motion could be a bit more fluid. Seems to me that it leaves him off balance after he trhows a pitch. Now, I'm not a pitching coach or anything, but I can't see that motion working for him. He sure couldn't get anybody out for the Sox in 2007. If MacDougal can get it together, he could be great in middle relief for the Sox in 2008. We'll see ...

sox1970

10-17-2007, 09:23 AM

MacDougal (with a short leash)
Egbert
Thornton
Logan
Wassermann
Jenks

Aardsma, Sisco, and Masset need to hit the dusty trail.

cws05champ

10-17-2007, 10:46 AM

Foulke:
I like your line of thinking and I'm hoping for a rebound from MacDougal in 2008. But here's the thing: I can't stand that herky jerky motion of his! I wish MacDougal's motion could be a bit more fluid. Seems to me that it leaves him off balance after he trhows a pitch. Now, I'm not a pitching coach or anything, but I can't see that motion working for him. He sure couldn't get anybody out for the Sox in 2007. If MacDougal can get it together, he could be great in middle relief for the Sox in 2008. We'll see ...

That Herky jerky motion helps him deceive hitters more. No doubt that he totally blew chunks last year, but I think he can rebound in a middle releif role and even work his way back to the set up roll. It's not the HJ motion it's his release point and location. I just don't think you release an arm like MacDougal, when he has proved that he can pitch at this level previously.

Lip Man 1

10-17-2007, 11:09 AM

CWS05:

I understand your position and agree with it somewhat but there's still the 'million dollar question' out there....how many chances do you give a guy, any guy, when he's directly losing games for you?

At what point in time do you say it's over?... a year, two years, five years?

Those blown games add up rather quickly as the Sox have found out the hard way the past two seasons.

Lip

chisox77

10-17-2007, 12:47 PM

Keep Jenks.

Possibly keep Thornton, Wassermann, and give Masset another shot.

If Floyd can't make the rotation, put him in the pen. I liked how he finished the season. He may make KW's Garcia trade look pretty good at some point.

And acquire Rick (Wild Thing) Vaughn, and pull Jake Taylor out of retirement to be his personal catcher. The White Sox seem to like ex-Tribe players.

And if Jake Taylor's knees are too shaky, bite the bullett and sign Jack Parkman.

:D:

Foulke You

10-18-2007, 02:30 PM

Foulke:
I like your line of thinking and I'm hoping for a rebound from MacDougal in 2008. But here's the thing: I can't stand that herky jerky motion of his! I wish MacDougal's motion could be a bit more fluid. Seems to me that it leaves him off balance after he trhows a pitch. Now, I'm not a pitching coach or anything, but I can't see that motion working for him. He sure couldn't get anybody out for the Sox in 2007. If MacDougal can get it together, he could be great in middle relief for the Sox in 2008. We'll see ...
Mac's motion with the arms and legs going a million different directions is a blessing and a curse for him. As cws05 pointed out, the jerky motion is part of what makes him effective but you're right, it is also part of his problem. When he doesn't have his motion "just right" he starts to have control problems. Walking batters and falling behind in the counts is what killed MacDougal in '07. People tend to remember some of the big long balls he gave up but that was only a direct result of his troubles staying ahead in the counts and putting runners on base. The scouting reports get around quick these days in MLB. All you had to do with Mike was wait him out and he'd get himself into trouble. In 2006, he located his fastball much better and was able to stay ahead. It's his previous success in the bigs that give me hope that he can iron out whatever was causing him to lose his control in '07.

Lip Man 1

10-18-2007, 03:36 PM

Foulke:

'Old MacDoodle' wasn't the only guy in that pen who couldn't throw strikes. It was an epidemic.

Lip

KyWhiSoxFan

10-18-2007, 06:05 PM

MacDougal is the one guy I don't want to see back in the pen. He's been the same, erratic, inconsistent, fold-under-pressure pitcher since his rookie year. Plus, he has absolutely no control of his pitches. It's not like he's 24 and can still improve. He's 30 and on the downside of his carer.

Get rid of him. Let him be someone else's headache.

The Thomenator

10-18-2007, 07:48 PM

I'd rather not see the people that peed down there leg this year. That thought and mentality is hard to erase from someone's mind. I liked Broadway's fortitude that he showed in the start he got. Granted, its a crapshoot (much like forming a bullpen) if it can translate to the pen. Anyone else out there agree with me on Broadway being a possibility for the long man?

Domeshot17

10-18-2007, 07:56 PM

(1) Macdougal will be back, Kenny signed him to an extension last year. The good thing is if this guy can get some of it back he is electric. Everything he throws is explosive, he has to to learn to harness it ala 2006 when he was arguably our 2nd half MVP our of the bullpen.

(2) How do you possibly give up on 25 year old Nick Masset? The kid has more potential in his arm then anyone in our rotation. He was the deal breaker for Brandon. If KW cuts him he is basically admitting he got took by Texas unless Danks finds a way to put it all back together (I loved his first half, but he did nothing to show he will really be any better or worse then Brandon). The funny thing with Masset is I think he is fixable. He had roughly the same amount of batters faced 0-1 and 1-0. 1-0 he got lit up, .429 average against. 0-1 no one touched him, .129 average against. If you work on his first pitch strike mentality you might have your diamond in the rough kenny covets.

(3) Going and getting a bunch of scrubs isnt that answer either. Kenny is smart, he should know its harder to hit an 88 mph fastball that is moving on the corner than a 95 mph fastball that is coming straight right down the middle. This Bullpen has no leader, no veteran leadership. We need a Linebrink or a Shields or someone who knows how to keep this freakin kids in line.

I agree Wasserman and Thorton are keepers.

Brian26

10-18-2007, 09:20 PM

Mariano Rivera as a setup man to Jenks.

sox1970

10-18-2007, 09:25 PM

I'd rather not see the people that peed down there leg this year. That thought and mentality is hard to erase from someone's mind. I liked Broadway's fortitude that he showed in the start he got. Granted, its a crapshoot (much like forming a bullpen) if it can translate to the pen. Anyone else out there agree with me on Broadway being a possibility for the long man?

Sure, how about a couple long guys, like Jack Egbert in addition to Broadway or Floyd? I'm sick of the lefty-righty crap that backfires too much. If you can come in and pitch 2+ innings in a shot, I'm all for it (much like Keith Foulke in 99).

You bring up a few 'unspoken' questions about Massett when you ask (paraphrasing) 'how can you give up on him?'

The first point is that he's out of options. Which means he's had chances in the past to stick and couldn't. That says something no?

Second is that he's 25 and despite chances, couldn't cut it for any lenght of time. Again that says something. It's not like he's 20 and was rushed to the big leagues.

I'm not trying to pick on Massett specifically just that he's a good example of this whole situation. Gavin Floyd is another one since he also is out of options.

I do agree your point about throwing hard but can't throw a strike is golden. Speed means nothing if you fall behind hitters, walk hitters or can't get guys out.

The bottom line is getting guys out, not how hard you throw.

Lip

Lip Man 1

10-18-2007, 09:55 PM

Chisox:

Not totally disagreeing with you but consider this about Thornton and Logan.

Thornton is a 'lefty specialist' who got lit up by left handers. (Yet on another note Ozzie kept letting him pitch to them even though he was pretty good against right handers. :?:) If you are a lefty specialist but can't get left handers out, why are you on the roster?

Logan got hurt badly by the home run ball and is coming off an incident where he admitted he lost it (game in Tampa in 2006) mentally. Is that the guy you want on the mound in an August pennant chase?

Lip

KRS1

10-18-2007, 10:06 PM

(2) How do you possibly give up on 25 year old Nick Masset? The kid has more potential in his arm then anyone in our rotation.

I agree with this point. I like his stuff a lot, and giving up on him would be foolish IMO. I just wish he had better command over it, and control of the strike zone.

Sure, how about a couple long guys, like Jack Egbert in addition to Broadway or Floyd? I'm sick of the lefty-righty crap that backfires too much. If you can come in and pitch 2+ innings in a shot, I'm all for it (much like Keith Foulke in 99).

I would also like to see something like this, but I don't think there is much of a chance Kenny puts his faith(job) on a couple of young kids again next year. Floyd is the one young guy I'm willing to bet fills a role in our staff next year. It's a shame that guys like Sisco, Masset, and Day failed so miserably, because I think it is going to push not only the organization, but the fans away from giving some other young guys (Russell, Hernandez) a fair shot in lieu of proven, but declining veterans. Wasserman gives me a little hope that there may be some opportunities for the young kids to prove themselves.

KRS1

10-18-2007, 10:14 PM

The first point is that he's out of options. Which means he's had chances in the past to stick and couldn't. That says something no?

Not quite. He had one shot in the bigs in 06' with Texas for the end of the season, and did a pretty good job. He was moving along nicely in the minors until he had a terrible 05' which he bounced back from and made it to the bigs the very next season. So it's not like he has had chance after chance to "stick". He has really only failed in one attempt to "stick".

Domeshot17

10-18-2007, 11:37 PM

Dome:

You bring up a few 'unspoken' questions about Massett when you ask (paraphrasing) 'how can you give up on him?'

The first point is that he's out of options. Which means he's had chances in the past to stick and couldn't. That says something no?

Second is that he's 25 and despite chances, couldn't cut it for any length of time. Again that says something. It's not like he's 20 and was rushed to the big leagues.

I'm not trying to pick on Massett specifically just that he's a good example of this whole situation. Gavin Floyd is another one since he also is out of options.

I do agree your point about throwing hard but can't throw a strike is golden. Speed means nothing if you fall behind hitters, walk hitters or can't get guys out.

The bottom line is getting guys out, not how hard you throw.

Lip

Lip I agree for the most part. But the reason we were so high on Masset was how he 'turned the page' in the AFL last year and was locating his fastball and that huge curve of his (remember hearing how they were comparing his stuff to Jenks all year). He has not even thrown 50 innings in the pros yet. I think he could be a Matt Thorton type late bloomer because his stuff hit him late.

Are you sure he is out of options? I believe you, but confused by this. He has only had 2 years pro which means we must be dealing with 6 years on the 40 man roster, and I have no idea why he would be on the 40 man since he was 20 if he didnt crack the bigs until 24 and wouldnt have been rule 5 eligiable until he was like 24-26.

Like I said, I don't doubt you but more just shocked by the poor management of Texas.

Just feels like one of those guys you don't wanna give up on. Sisco and Aardsma a little of the same but less. With those 2 its strictly a fastball, neither features the type of stuff Masset has. The way we all wonder if we got out diamond in the rough in Floyd is what we could feel like we lost in Masset. I would KEEP him as the long/mop up reliever OVER broadway honestly. I think we are ruining these kids who are starters by forcing them to relieve. A lot of them can't do both. They might not have the mentality to pitch everyday, they might need an hour to get loose, hell they might be the type of *****ers like Brandon Mccarthy was where he gets stronger as he pitches, so his 1 inning of relief may be poor because he is better in the 5th then he is in the first type of guy.

KRS1

10-19-2007, 12:24 AM

Sisco and Aardsma a little of the same but less. With those 2 its strictly a fastball, neither features the type of stuff Masset has.

I disagree strongly with you saying Sisco doesn't have the kind of stuff Masset has. His offspeed stuff (split-change or whatever it is, and a slider) is pretty sick, he is just RARELY able to use it because he is always fighting his way back into counts. The guy kills himself more than anything because he has the stuff to be lights out, but he is just so inconsistent with his command that hitters don't even have to worry about his offspeed pitches. All a batter has to do is wait for Sisco to come to them and sit on his fastball, because chances are very likely that he will be forced to do just that. He has some seriously silly stuff, too bad it goes to waste because of his lack of control and consistency.

Aardsma's knuckle-curve disappeared completely a month into the season, so who knows what the hell the story with him is.

Frater Perdurabo

10-19-2007, 06:13 AM

Brian26:

If Rivera is available and interested in coming to the Sox, don't you have to sign him?

I'm not sure if he'd be interested in a set-up role, but there's nothing wrong with having two great closers. What that means is that you've got protection in case of injury, plus you've got two guys who can shut down an opponent for an inning each. Suddenly the eighth inning isn't a problem. Now, Ozzie need only find someone to get guys out in the seventh and maybe part of the sixth; more often than not Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez give you six solid innings, and frequently more.

I'd love to have both Jenks and Rivera. I'd overpay to make that happen!

Lip Man 1

10-19-2007, 11:50 AM

Dome:

I know on more then one occasion this season the newspapers said Masset is out of options... so this spring he either makes the team or they must cut him (unless he clears waivers and agrees to report to Charlotte.)

Lip

TheVulture

10-19-2007, 12:47 PM

I think he could be a Matt Thorton type late bloomer because his stuff hit him late.

I wouldn't even call him a late bloomer - how many pitchers are really any good at the major league level before 25? Seems like most starting pitchers these days don't even hit their peaks until around 30-32.

oeo

10-19-2007, 01:48 PM

If Rivera is available and interested in coming to the Sox, don't you have to sign him?

If we're planning on signing an outfielder, I don't think Rivera is going to happen. He's getting old, and he'll be demanding a lot of money, so no thanks. I know he proved he can still do his thing after this year, but for how much longer? I doubt he'd take a one year deal...too risky, IMO.